Correction of Class II Edge-to-Edge Maloclussion with Micro-implants. Case Report
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: In orthodontic practice, the use of micro-implants as skeletal anchorage has increased in recent years. Orthodontists have noncompliant patients, slow treatments, and the undesirable effects that occur in tooth movement with conventional treatments. Therefore, simplifying orthodontic mechanics, reducing treatment time, and not depending completely on the patient are strategies for success with the use of these appliances. Objective: To achieve the correction of the Class II malocclusion in the shortest possible time with micro-implants. Case presentation: A 12-year-old female patient attended the Clinic of Postgraduate Orthodontics-UNAM for orthodontic treatment. Her initial treatment plan consisted of a conventional mechanic of passive self-ligating braces without extractions. However, due to the prolonged treatment time, it was decided to include infrazygomatic micro-implants for anterior retraction, and the objectives were achieved in a relatively short time. Conclusions: An orthodontic treatment with micro-implants considerably reduces the treatment time, and reduces the adverse effects on the mechanics of distalization and anterior retraction.
Article Details
Citas en Dimensions Service
References
Uslu-Akcam MO, Efendiyeva R, Akcam MO. Treatment of anterior open-bite using zygomatic anchorage: a 10-year follow-up case report. Aust. Orthod. J. 2020; 36(2): 211-219. DOI: 10.21307/aoj-2020-024
Antoszewska-Smith J, Sarul M, Łyczek J, Konopka T, Kawalaa B. Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during en-masse retraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017: 151(3): 440-445. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.029
Deguchi T, Kurosaka H, Oikawa H, Kuroda S, Takahashi I, Yamashiro T, et al. Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in adults with skeletal open bite between conventional edgewise treatment and implant-anchored orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139(4,Suppl): S60-S68. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.04.029
Sherwood KH, Burch JG, Thompson WJ. Closing anterior open bites by intruding molars with titanium miniplate anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122(6): 593-600. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.128641
Aly SA, Alyan D, Fayed MS, Alhammadi MS, Mostafa YA. Success rates and factors associated with failure of temporary anchorage devices: A prospective clinical trial. J Invest Clin Dent. 2018; 9(3): e12331. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12331
Moon CH, Lee DG, Lee HS, Im JS, Baek SH. Factors associated with the success rate of orthodontic miniscrews placed in the upper and lower posterior buccal region. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(1): 101-106. DOI: 10.2319/121706-515.1
Arnett GW, Bergman RT. Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 103(4): 299-312. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(93)70010-L
Chen Y, Kyung HM, Zhao WT, Yu WJ. Critical factors for the success of orthodontic mini-implants: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(3): 284-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.017
Dermaut LR, Kleutghen JPJ, De Clerck HJJ. Experimental determination of the center of resistance of the upper first molar in a macerated, dry human skull submitted to horizontal headgear traction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986; 90(1): 29-36. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(86)90024-7
Benson PE, Tinsley D, O’Dwyer JJ, Majumdar A, Doyle P, Sandler PJ. Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage—a randomized clinical trial: cephalometric results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132(5): 606-615. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.040
Sa’aed NL, Park CO, Bayome M, Park JH, Kim Y, Kook YA. Skeletal and dental effects of molar distalization using a modified palatal anchorage plate in adolescents. Angle Orthod. 2015; 85(4): 657-664. DOI: 10.2319/060114-392.1
Cozza P, Baccetti T, Franchi L, De Toffol L, and McNamara JA. Mandibular changes produced by functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129(5): 599.e1-599e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.010
Chhibber A, Upadhyay M. Anchorage reinforcement with a fixed functional appliance during protraction of the mandibular second molars into the first molar extraction sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 148(1): 165-173. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.02.029
Mariani L, Maino G, Caprioglio A. Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects. Prog Orthod. 2014; 15(1): 43. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0043-z
Revista Odontológica Mexicana por Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0 Internacional.
Basada en una obra en http://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rom.